氟康唑液与聚维酮碘液治疗外耳道真菌病疗效分析  

Effects of fluconazole and povidone iodine on external otomycosis

作　　者：朱运华[1] 

机构地区：[1]河南省商丘市第一人民医院耳鼻咽喉科,476100

出　　处：《中国实用医刊》2014年第18期47-49,共3页Chinese Journal of Practical Medicine

摘　　要：目的：比较氟康唑液和聚维酮碘液治疗外耳道真菌病的临床效果。方法将118例外耳道真菌病患者随机分为研究组（n=60）和对照组（n=58），研究组应用聚维酮碘液治疗，对照组应用氟康唑液治疗。疗程结束后随访观察患者1年，比较两组的有效率，记录两组患者治疗平均时间和治疗平均总费用。结果研究组有效率为97.3%，对照组有效率为88.2%。研究组平均治疗时间为（21.4±3.8）d，对照组平均治疗时间为（27.9±5.7）d。研究组平均治疗总费用为（598.2±58.7）元，对照组平均治疗总费用为（826.5±76.4）元。两组比较差异均有统计学意义（ P﹤0.05）。结论氟康唑液和聚维酮碘液均能有效治疗外耳道真菌病，但聚维酮碘液效果更好，同时还具有价格低廉的优点，值得临床推广应用。Objective To compare the clinical effects of fluconazole and povidone iodine on ex-ternal otomycosis. Methods One hundred and eighteen patients with external otomycosis were random-ized divided into study group（ n=60 ）and control group（ n=58 ）. Povidone iodine was used in study group,and fluconazole was used in control group. The patients were followed-up for 1 year. The effects of the two groups were compared,and the average treatment time and costs were recorded. Results The efficiency of study group and control group was 97. 3% and 88. 2%,respectively. The average treatment time of study group and control group was（21. 4 ± 3. 8）d and（27. 9 ± 5. 7）d,respectively. The average cost of study group and control group was（598. 2 ± 58. 7）yuan and（826. 5 ± 76. 4）yuan,respectively. There were significant differences between the two groups（ P all﹤0. 05 ）. Conclusions Both fluconazole and povidone iodine can treat external otomycosis effectively,but povidone iodine is better than flucon-azole,and it also has the advantage of low price,so it is worthy of clinical application.

关 键 词：氟康唑 聚维酮碘 外耳道真菌病 

分 类 号：R764.1[医药卫生—耳鼻咽喉科]